Ok Ok. Let’s just say expressing thoughts is not quite my best asset. But worry not. I’ll look for evidence to support what I say. I’ll think it over. I’m busy these days, but I’ll be back. 
Thanks and I’ll look forward to it. The conversation has been very interesting so far. 
I’m back. Let’s see… We were talking about Christ’s Ressurection, that there are no absolute proves. Let’s take a look at the possible theories that explain His Ressurection. (All the italics below are copied from faithandjustice.com/Resurrection . I figured The Ressurection is explined clearer than I ever could, besides it brings evidence I couldn’t have ever thought of.)
[i]1. THE DISCIPLES STOLE THE BODY. The Disciples themselves stole the body from the tomb then began falsely preaching His Resurrection.
2. THE ROMANS TOOK THE BODY. The Roman authorities took the body from the tomb, and the Disciples discovering an empty tomb began preaching the Resurrection.
3. THE JEWISH LEADERS STOLE THE BODY. Same thing. The Jewish leaders took the body and the Disciples mistakenly thought Jesus had risen.
4. WRONG TOMB. The women went to the wrong tomb. They got lost or confused, went to the wrong tomb, found it empty, honestly reported the information back to His followers. And without checking themselves, the Disciples started to preach a risen Savior.
5. RESUSCITATION. Jesus was considered dead, but in the coolness of the tomb, came back to better health. It wasn’t a true resurrection but a recovery from near death.
6. THE DISCIPLES HALLUCINATED. They thought they saw a Resurrection and an Ascension, but it really didn’t happen.
7. SUBSTITUTE WAS CRUCIFIED. The Disciples or their cohorts switched persons and a substitute who looked like Jesus was nailed to the tree instead.
8. DISCIPLES LIED. The Disciples made-up the whole story to save face. They were telling lies and knew they were lying.
9. DISCIPLES TOLD THE TRUTH. The Disciples honestly reported what they saw, exactly how they saw it, and truly experienced the things they preached.
Now, let’s examine these nine theories and narrow them down. Out of these nine, there are only two real possibilities. The Disciples were either lying or they were telling the truth, theories 8 and 9, because:
Theory 1. The Disciples Stole The Body. If the Disciples stole the body, then they were liars. Everything they said about a Resurrection and Ascension was made-up.
Theory 2. The Romans Took The Body. The Romans taking the body lacks credibility. The Jewish leaders’ relationship with the Roman authorities was such that it produced the crucifixion in the first place. They shared equally in putting an innocent man to death. The Romans would have been just as eager to squash the inciting rumors. Given their relationship with the Jewish leaders, coupled with an equal concern to disprove the Resurrection preaching, if they had taken the body, they would have produced certification that they indeed had removed the body. There was rioting, persecution, chaos over the stories. The Romans would not have kept their deed a secret but would have promptly produced either the body or certification that they had taken it for safe keeping. So we are still left with theory 8 or theory 9 as being possible, because if the Romans had taken the body, then the claims of the New Testament preachers were all false.
Theory 3. The Jewish Leaders Stole The Body. If the Jewish leaders had taken the body, same thing. Their dire concern over the preaching, a concern validated by the persecution of the Disciples, and their urgent need to stop the preaching would have forced them to produce the body had they taken it. Leaving us again with theories 8 or 9: The Disciples either lied or told the truth.
Theory 4. Wrong Tomb. If the women went to the wrong tomb, all anyone had to do was go to the right one to silence the preaching. Simple.
Theory 5. Resuscitation. Ever been to a crucifixion? Ever recover from a spear wound in your side? The Disciples did not preach a shroud-wrapped, emaciated, recovering, wounded, near dead Christ. They preached a fully healed, new-bodied Christ, who walked, talked and ate with them, who made several appearances and disappearances. They were either lying about His state of being and what they witnessed, or they were telling the truth. Back to theories 8 or 9 as being possible.
Theory 6. The Disciples Hallucinated. At first, hallucination may seem probable. But a closer look reveals flaws. Psychiatric evidence indicates that a certain pre-positioning of the mind is necessary for one to have hallucinations. For one thing, one must first expect and believe. All of the records available about the Disciples confirm that they were each and all in frames of mind exactly opposite to that which would bring on such hallucinations. Records tell us they were shocked by His Resurrection because of their own disbelief and lack of expectation. Furthermore, if all they were doing was hallucinating, thus affording them honesty, then the body still would have been in the tomb. The accessibility of the tomb and the dire concerns of the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities shatters the hallucination theory. The statistical probability that both the body would disappear and that all the preachers were hallucinating individually and as groups, stretches the imagination beyond normal limits. Even the Holy Blood, Holy Grail theory requires that the Disciples be liars to conspire and carry this out. They had to be lying or they all were telling the truth about what they witnessed.
Theory 7. A Substitute Was Crucified. This is a relatively new theory to explain the Resurrection. But this, as with the other theories, would demand cooperation of some or all of the Disciples, not to mention at least one willing participant whose face and body could stand-in for Jesus and who didn’t mind dying in such a manner to produce a hoax on society. If this theory is true, then the Disciples lied. We are back to they either lied or told the truth.
Thus the fundamental issue of the Resurrection boils down to the veracity of the reporters. There are no other tenable explanations. All the theories explaining the Resurrection are embodied in one of two possibilities: The Disciples either lied or they told the truth. It is either theory 8 or theory 9.[/i]
[i]There are four major reasons to believe the Disciples told the truth.
1. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Internal evidence is the interlocking of details, the meshing of certain facts. These facts are seldom found in stories told by liars.
For instance, most all scholars agree that Mark wrote his Gospel for the Gentile readers, meaning non-Jews. There is some debate whether the focus was to Egyptian or to the Roman readers, but in any event the anticipated readers were to be Gentile. It is also well known that the purpose of Mark’s Gospel was to demonstrate to the Gentiles that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet, Mark, in his Gospel, has Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man more than any other writer. Now, if you’re lying, and you’re trying to convince someone that you’re friend is the Son of God, why have him referring to himself as the Son of Man? Doesn’t make sense if you’re telling a lie. So why do it? Because that’s what Jesus called Himself. But if Mark is a liar, and it hurts his position to have Jesus call Himself the Son of Man, why not change it? Why not have Jesus refer to Himself as the Son of God? The answer is, because he’s reporting accurately. A truthful reporter will tell the truth even though it hurts his position. A liar won’t.
To the Hebrew reader, familiar with the Old Testament (particularly the book of Daniel and the apocryphal book of Enoch) the phrase “Son of Man” was a messianic term used by the Jews to depict the coming of the Messiah. “Son of Man” to the Hebrew reader carried divine connotations and supernatural meaning. But to the Gentile reader it suggested humanity not divinity. If Mark was part of a plot to deceive, if he was deliberately lying, isn’t it more reasonable to assume he was smart enough to embellish his story a little better than that? Don’t you think he would have changed it? What liar can stand looking like one? Mark sounds more like an honest reporter of what Jesus really said than a liar.
There are other instances, such as Mark graphically portrays Peter’s failures and weaknesses. Mark was not only a student of Peter’s, they were very close. Yet, in spite of the friendship, Mark tells it like it was. If Mark had no regard for the truth, he could have painted a better picture of his good friend. Again, Mark comes through as an honest reporter.
Another example of internal evidence of honesty relates to the seven-week delay in broadcasting the Resurrection. Some critics of the Resurrection point to this delay as a weakness in the record. They hint that the seven week delay was necessary to give the Disciples time to make-up the story and get the facts straight. If the Disciples were smart enough to pull something like this off, don’t you think at the allotted time, three days and nights after Jesus’ death, they would have been the first ones shouting He’s risen! They’re smart enough to pull it off, but not smart enough to know that such a delay of seven weeks before coming forward would hurt their story? What liars don’t know that a time delay hurts their credibility? The conduct of a liar is to explain right away even if the explanation doesn’t necessarily jell with the facts and circumstances. Liars count on confusion and depend on it to help persuade. A liar’s worst enemy is a clear-headed calm thinker who has had time to go over the incident with a fine-tooth comb.
The Jewish leaders and the Roman authorities knew of Jesus’ claim to rise again. Guards were posted at the tomb because of it. It would have been in the Disciples’ best interest, if they were lying, not to give the leaders and authorities time to think, but to proclaim a risen savior immediately to the on-looking world. Instead, the New Testament says that the Disciples were crushed by the crucifixion, then surprised by the Resurrection. They themselves obviously didn’t believe Jesus would rise. They themselves were caught off-guard. Shocked, the New Testament says the Disciples did what they were told by a Resurrected Christ. He told them to wait at Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit. If this was true, wouldn’t you have acted the same way? Wouldn’t you have gone to Jerusalem and waited for instructions too? Or would you have stood there and argued with someone who has just risen from the dead and proven to you He was God, and said, “Well, look now, this is goin’ to make me look like a liar if I wait. I need to let everyone know now?” The New Testament testifies that immediately following the visit of the Holy Spirit, seven weeks later as promised by Jesus, the Disciples began preaching the Resurrection and the Ascension. It sounds like simple, honest men, who experienced something so out of the ordinary, so bizarre and so overwhelming that they never gave a thought as to whether the seven week delay would help or hurt their story. They just trusted and did what Christ said, then told everyone what happened.
Then there are the smaller, more minute details interwoven throughout the New Testament evidencing honest reporting that no liar would pay attention to. For instance, when Jesus faced the multitude needing food as told by John and Luke–two Gospel writers, writing separately, in separate places, at separate times, to separate people. Though the issue was faith and not food, John 6:5 records that Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread. Why ask Philip? Only by going over the record and to other Gospels will you learn why. In Luke 9:10 we find out that Jesus asked Philip about bread near a place called Bethsaida. Then, by going back to another part of John (Jn 1:44) we learn that Philip came from Bethsaida. It takes three different sections of the Gospel to reveal a simple fact: Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread while near Bethsaida because Philip had lived there and knew the town. But the point is, liars don’t pay attention to this kind of detail. In fact, this is the very type of detail that normally exposes them as liars.
The Gospel records have withstood an onslaught of critics for centuries and still they convey sincerity and honest reporting by the writers. If they were honest reporters on little things, even when it hurt their position, could they not be telling the truth about the Resurrection?
2. CATACLYSMIC CHANGE IN ALL THE DISCIPLES. Another reason to believe they were telling the truth is, not only have they demonstrated honesty in their reporting, they demonstrated change. Each and every Disciple changed, simultaneously, after the Resurrection, from different kinds of failures to far better men than what they ever were before the event. Lies can change people, but seldom for the better.
Take for instance, Peter. Before the Resurrection, he is unstable in nature. He swears one moment that he will die for his Lord then denies him three times. He’s weak, a coward. At the judgment of Jesus, he can’t look a little girl in the face and admit that he was one of Jesus’ Disciples. He lacks discernment and understanding. He refuses to let Jesus wash his feet. Then, when Jesus says to Peter that he won’t enter the Kingdom unless he allows Jesus to serve him, Peter cries, “Wash me all over!” He lacks commitment. Jesus took His Disciples up on the Mount of Transfiguration in a moment of crisis to share the future about His crucifixion. They climb the hill and Peter goes to sleep. He lacks insight and intelligence. Peter had been with Jesus for three years and still didn’t know why Jesus was going to Calvary. When Jesus told him, Peter said, “Be it far from thee.” Jesus had to rebuke him and say “Get behind me Satan, you speak as a man.” Repeatedly, if you study the personality of this man Peter, he is the most unpredictable, the most unstable of all the Disciples. But something change him…
On the day of Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit appeared in the upper room at Jerusalem, a mocking crowd gathered at the bottom of the building on the street. Peter stood and faced them. The one who couldn’t face a little girl now stands with defiant strength and faces a mocking crowd and accuses them! In Acts 2:22-24, 32, he tells them how they by wicked hands have killed Christ but that God has raised Him up! He faces priests and Jewish leaders and refuses to stop preaching the Resurrection, saying “Shall we obey God or man?” Because of his preaching, three thousand are born into the Kingdom in one day. He continues to preach like that, never wavering, to his death.
To scattered saints all across mid-Asia, Peter emphasizes in his epistles: You are citizens of a heavenly land. You are children of a heavenly Father. You are pilgrims on a journey to an ultimate destination. Act like citizens in an alien land. Let no persecution or problem cower you, but let the world see by your living testimony (of the Resurrection) that you are a citizen of a heavenly country and nothing can change you, nothing can cower you, nothing can break you down.
That’s a changed man talking. From instability to stability, from non-commitment to commitment, from no insight to complete understanding of who he was, from cowardice to ultimate courage. So much courage that the one who ran from a little girl says to his executioners when they go to crucify him, “Turn me upside-down. I’m not worthy to be crucified in the position of my Lord.” Then he laid down in place and stretched out his arms to be nailed. Lies can change people, but like that?
Then there’s John. Before the Resurrection, John was selfish, bad-tempered. He wasn’t the sweet, loving Apostle everyone now knows him to be. The same is true of James. James and John were nicknamed “Son’s of Thunder.” They were constantly bickering, causing trouble. They wanted the best seats in Jesus’ Kingdom and lacked the character to ask for it themselves. John sent his mother to ask. Yet, who of all the Apostles becomes the epitome of love? You don’t find any progression in it, just a sharp change from what John was to what he became. He was selfish, high-tempered, trouble-making, then all of a sudden, on the other side of the Resurrection, John becomes love incarnate, gentle, patient, understanding, sweet-natured. His writings above all the writings in the New Testament become expressions of love. Again, that’s a changed man. It’s a change for the better, something that lies do not produce.
Look at Thomas. Thomas was always a doubter. On one occasion Jesus faced a dangerous journey. Thomas says to the other Disciples, “Let’s go with Him to die also.” You have to admire his love and courage, but he was a hard-headed humanist. He expected Jesus to be killed on that journey, not believing all the things Jesus had told him about Calvary; that He would lay down His life there for the world. In John 14, Jesus tells the Disciples that He is going to leave. You don’t have to be super spiritual to understand that statement. Jesus claimed He was going to prepare mansions for them, and said, “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.” But Thomas, not believing, jumps up and says, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” That’s the voice of a skeptic! Everywhere we meet Thomas in Scripture, he’s a doubter. Who’s doubting at the crucifixion? When the Resurrection report comes, who disbelieves? He says, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Then the day came when Jesus appeared and said, “…behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side…” And Thomas fell to his knees and cried, “My Lord and My God.” All records support he was changed thereafter, never doubting again. He took the message into the Himalayas, the most difficult areas to penetrate. It is Thomas who went into India, into the heart of Buddhism, and never faulted in his faith ever again. Again, that’s a change… and for the better.
Study the record for yourself. Follow the history of the witnesses in the different archives. As a group they fail Jesus miserably, abandoning Him at the crucifixion, lacking the courage even to say His name out loud. Then all of a sudden, they’re changed. All records bear testimony: Those who witnessed and preached the Resurrection and Ascension cataclysmically changed for the better! And because of the quality of change, it’s difficult to believe it was produced by a lie.
3. THE PRICE THEY PAID. Another reason to believe they were telling the truth is, you don’t pay the price they paid for a lie. You don’t suffer what they suffered, for a lie. Again, to those who look, the records are concrete. All of them died horribly a martyr’s death, except John, the beloved Apostle. John was persecuted and tortured, some reports say boiled in oil, but not unto death. To name a few:
Bartholomew. Having translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India, he propagated it in that country. He was skinned alive, his flesh peeled from his body by a whip, further reportedly suspended on a cross, and at the command of King Astyages was finally beheaded in Armenia. He could have avoided the cruelty and saved his life had he stopped preaching the message of the Resurrection and Ascension.
Thomas. Most reliable reports have it that he was speared to death with a Brahmin sword on “Big Hill” near Madras, India, refusing to be silent about the Resurrection and Ascension.
Simon the Zealot. The tradition of the Golden Legend states he was sawed in half by pagan priests for preaching the message in Persia. He could have stopped preaching it to save his life. There is some confusion historically as to another Simon crucified, in AD 74, in Britain for preaching the Gospel. In either event, death came because of the message being preached.
Peter. Crucified upside-down in Rome. He could have walked away had he stopped proclaiming a risen Savior Who ascended into Heaven before his very eyes.
Philip. Martyred at Hierapolis ( Heliopolis) in Phrygia under Emperor Domitian. He was scourged, thrown into prison, then crucified, also upside-down. Had he said the Resurrection was all a hoax, he could have saved his life.
Andrew. Crucified at Patras (or Edessa), Acaia, on an X shape saltire cross. He could have saved his life had he renounced the message as a lie.
Mark. He was dragged to pieces in Alexandria by the people at the solemnity of Serapis their idol. All he had to do to save his life was to stop preaching the message of the Resurrection of his Lord.
Jude. Reported as the brother of James, was called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa, AD 72. All he had to do was say it really didn’t happen.
The list goes on… These men paid beyond human belief… for a lie?
4. THEY DIED ALONE. Dying for a lie might be considered possible by some, but what Thomas of Aquinas calls the great proof of the Resurrection is, all the Disciples died alone. It might be possible to believe that group pressure forced them to stick to their story in the beginning. But separated, alone, facing death, and they still claimed it was true?
Picture this: A group of us get together and we make-up this lie. Now before telling this lie, as a group we are not worth a hill of beans. But we decide not to admit that Jesus was a fraud and are determined to carry-out this hoax. For a moment, imagine you are Bartholomew. You are in Armenia, alone. It’s taken you months to travel there, considering the transportation of the day. There’s no means of communication, no television, telegram, telephone, satellite, not even mail service. You have a friend, Peter, he’s up in Rome. I’m another friend, Thomas, over in India, but you’re not sure where.
You are preaching this lie about the Resurrection of Jesus, like we all agreed. They tie you to a post and begin to skin you alive. The pain is more than you can bear. They’re going to kill you if you do not stop preaching this message. All you have to do to save your life, to stop the pain, is say we made-up this lie. I wouldn’t know you recanted. I’m over in India. Peter wouldn’t know, he’s up in Rome. Next time we meet, you can act as if nothing happened, you’re still telling the story the way we all agreed, and not a single conspirator would know any different except you. So why won’t you do it?
It is psychologically inconceivable that every single one of these men, standing alone, separated from the rest of the group, facing death because of the message they’re preaching, would choose to die instead of renouncing their testimony… that is, if they were lying. We have the historic perspective of two-thousand years. We can examine the record of history. You will not find one shred of evidence in history where one of these men, proven weaklings before the Resurrection, proven selfish, thinking only of themselves, proven unstable, proven cowards, leaving Jesus to die alone the day of the Crucifixion, ever renounced or weakened on their story of the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. Not a one. If you search through all history records of any country, not a one of these men can be found ever renouncing or recanting the message to save his life. Not one would deny that they walked, talked and ate with Jesus after His death. Not one would deny that they had witnessed His appearances and disappearances, that they saw Him ascend into Heaven, that He was lifted up into clouds of glory. They refused to spare their own lives… for a lie?
No. People don’t suffer the way they suffered for a lie. People don’t choose to give up their lives for a lie. There can be only one explanation why these men acted the way they did under the pressure they endured, especially men who were once weak, unstable and cowards. They acted that way because these Disciples had witnessed something so overwhelming that they couldn’t deny it, even when their lives depended on it. They knew the truth of the Resurrection, they knew Jesus was who He said He was, and they would rather feel the pain of this world than lose their life in the next. There is no other intelligent, credible and sound explanation than the witnesses were telling the truth and proved their veracity with their lives. He died, rose from the dead, blew away that stone, came out of that tomb, had a new body, made several appearances and disappearances and He ascended into Heaven, all before their very eyes.[/i]
I know copying and pasting isn’t exctly what thinkers do. But I must say I agree to what I have copied here.
Well that is quite a lot of info. It may take me a while to respond b/c it is the end of the semester and I’m sure you know how that can be.
So give me a few days and I will put up an argument, that is if I have an argument. 
No prob. We have all the time in the world
Which reminds me of
See you later, then.
Ok, here I go. There are a lot of points so I hope that you will excuse me from breaking down each and every individual one. Hopefully my generalized rebuttal will be enough to satisfy the author’s theories.
First off, I would like to say that the authors (of this article) could not possibly project all the possible scenarios that would undo the story of the ressurection. So there are many scenarios that were left out. To me, if the evidence isn’t better than a bunch of theories, then something is wrong. Throughout the years we have seen many cults with similar followings. The followers and leaders sincerely believed in their ways as well. Even enough to die for their beliefs. This is not a new idea. There is a difference, however. This particular following grew and it grew to a large number. This is not new either. There are many religions in this world and they all have the same kind of devout beliefs that the Christians have. This is how religions begin. There is no point in arguing the small points like ressurection, because it is not an answerable question.
Sure Jesus could have ressurected and presented himself to only a few of his followers and then his followers could have waited 12 weeks before they supposedly told everyone about it. The fact is that the actual accounts were not written until years and years after the so-called event took place. This leaves a lot of room for outside influence, emotional reconstructions, and reconfigurement of events so that they match emotions and outside influence. Time, outside influence, and emotion can do a lot of things to memory. I would not suggest that the gospel writers were lying but I would say that a lot of these stories could reasonably have been misguided.
Take for instance the Gospel of Thomas. It did not make it into the biblical canon. Why? Because his stories were incongruent with the other gospel writers. How could this be? He was there, just like the rest of the disciples. Maybe he just missed the recap meeting that Matthew, Mark, and Luke must have had before they wrote there accounts? Thomas was not the only account that was rejected. Many others were as well. This just proves that just b/c they honestly say it was so, doesn’t make it so. Sincerity doesn’t mean truth.
See what I mean? If you want some good faith building material, check out Josh McDowell. He has a book called ‘evidence that demands a verdict’. It covers a lot of these small points. The problem is that even with all of the points that anyone can make, in the end it comes down to faith. The question that you have to ask yourself is, is faith enough?
Before we go any further, I feel it necessary to ask a simple question. If I could prove to you that Christianity was false would you believe it? If not, then I feel no need to go any further as our conversation is pointless. If yes, then keep it coming.
No, I won’t believe it. Logics will never overcome faith.
I expected such a reply and it is understandable as this is such an emotion dependent subject. I just hope that you can understand why myself and others may find reason not to accept Christianity. If you can accept this then I am very happy to accept you regardless of your beliefs. Almost the entirety of my friends and family are Christian and not long ago, I was too. I may disagree with them and even lose respect for them due to their lack of desire to ask the important questions, but I will accept them as long as they will accept me.
Bigotry is the only thing that upsets me about religion. Religion just does not need to be a dividing factor although dogmatic, fanatical believers tend to make this an issue. There has just been too much hatred that has stemmed out of religion throughout the years and Christians are definitely not excluded. They have played just as much a part in religious bigotry as any other religion. You may say, “well, that was them and I am different.” but they are your heritage and your brothers and sisters in Christ.
So as long as you keep an open heart, you need not keep an open mind.
(Just remember, if you ever feel the need to ask questions, don’t feel afraid to ask them. If you are truly interested in Truth “ask the tough questions” and the Truth shall be revealed. Jesus puts it best when he said, “Then you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” - John 8:32)
Sincerely,
your brother in life,
Jason
About asking the tough questions… You can’t jump right to them, just as a english kindergarden child can’t understand chinese. On the other hand, he can have an intuition of what a chinese is telling him by watching his gestures, his eyes and so on. It’s the same thing with religion, at least for me. You must have some moment of inspiration in which you come to understand what noone else is telling you, and that feeling beats every possible logic. You must also use your intuitive part, it’s not there, inside you, for nothing.
I somehow agree, though, to this policy of yours, of asking the tough questions. But let’s make small and strong steps.
Ok?
As you said before, Skeptic, yes, it all comes down to faith. In a world of relativity, believing in the absolute is something. There are no objective evidence to the fact that Christ has ressurected, as much as I can tell, but that doesn’t mean anything. It still leaves us with the subjective, as a mirror of what we cannot prove. I mean, observing what’s happening to those who believe, to understand what’s behind it. Be it a lie, it can’t perpetuate like that through the centuries, at least not in so much detail. Accepting the unacceptable is the big defining step…
Which reminds me… I’ve been reading some Kierkegaard lately, and I found some lines that would fit in this discussion.
Thanks, I enjoyed that. I would agree with Kierkegaard in a sense. Christianity does not preach an end to suffering, although many misguided Christians would claim it does. Christianity claims that the “battle” is won and that suffering will end at death for the Christians but everyone else will suffer eternally. I only have one question. Is that fair? If so, why? Why would God be interested in such a horrible scheme?
Here are a few quotes that I have recently come across regarding faith.
Dan Barker
From his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist
“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, “Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen!” If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
Arthur C. Clarke
“A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.”
How about a George Carlin perspective?
“I’ve begun worshipping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It’s there for me every day, and the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There’s no mystery, no one asks for money, I don’t have to dress up, and there’s no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to ‘God’ are all answered at about the same 50% rate.”
Translated, that sounds like “Does it sound fair that people who really want to be free (because this is faith, after all) get to be free, and those who don’t, don’t get to be free?” There is also the fact that some people don’t even get to hear about Christianity, nor do most of those who hear of it understand what it really is about. Well, God is not only just, but also merciful.
I don’t know, I don’t know to answer your question.
Well then, you can ask also the question whether the birth of handicapped people is something fair. God has the right of creating as He wishes.
That’s the point! Esspecially today, when only science has the right to perform miracles. Not wanting to believe the relative is the only way to face the absolute. (Science is sometimes pretending to be studying the absolute.) Let me remind you of Mark 9:24 “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief!”
You should watch The Matrix. And if you did watch it before, watch it again.
Couldn’t agree more.
Indeed heat, light, food and a lovely day are obvious things. But do they really not imply any mistery? Do you think your free will, your existence as a counsciousness, is something so… self-determined? Or maybe I’m not using the right word. But you get the point.
You are thoroughly confusing me now.
But didn’t you say in a previous post that ‘you wouldn’t believe me even if I could prove Christianity was false’ because you have ‘faith’? So if I gave you the ‘truth’ and you are unwilling to believe the ‘truth’, then ‘faith’ cannot survive a collision with the ‘truth’. Ultimately, you are saying that you are right, regardless of the truth.
Wonderful verse! I should have brought this one up sooner as it has a wonderful message. So let’s examine it. I believe but I don’t completely believe so give me reason not to doubt. Perfectly valid prayer and I, myself, prayed it many times in trying to overcome my own doubts. I dare you to pray that same prayer and then actively seek out the Truth. If your beliefs are True then God will respond by validating your beliefs. or do you not trust your God? Will He lead you astray?
George Carlin wrote:
I think that you misunderstood George Carlin. He is a comedian and this is actually a satirical comment. He is just saying what’s the difference? Neither belief is any less ridiculous.
I am just trying to tell you not to be afraid of the truth. If the God of Christianity is real then He will not let you down.
Am I not making good points?
No. I’m trying to say that logics doesn’t always lead you to the truth (we should start a thread about this).
About Mark 9:24
Personally, I see it like this: Mark admits he is imperfect, admits the existence of a God, and identifies God as Him whom he is talking to. If he wouldn’t believe he was talking to God, would he still say “help my unbelief”?
As for George Calin… I don’t really like comedians. But let’s see. Neither belief is any less ridiculous, he sais. I say ridiculous is he who doesn’t believe in anything.
And yes, you’re making good points. Even though my poor understanding of english stops me from understanding what you really mean, sometimes… But I guess we’re getting along quite well.
Yes, we should definitely start a thread on this, although we already have too many threads to keep up with as it is. I completely disagree with you on this subject! But I am willing to change mind if you can prove it to me.
From your position, it is too paradoxical to mean anything. I see that there are different levels of belief. It is not an absolute. If it were absolute, Mark would have “Lord, I know.” and that would have been the end of it. Right?
I don’t believe. I only know, wonder, and hope. What is so ridiculous about that?
Thanks and I apologize for forgetting English is not your main language. We Americans tend to do that. Speaking of language, what language do you speak? Romanian? Is that a language? You will have to tell me a little bit about yourself. I think it will make our discussion easier. What denomination do you associate with? Catholic, eastern orthodox, lutheran, methodist, baptist, etc.? What is your church like? What is the Romanian government like? Are you a student, working class, etc.? Any other information? Anyways, I just think that would help me understand where you are coming from. Feel free to ask me any questions as well. and also let me know if I don’t explain something very clearly.
You are invoking logics to prove logics is wrong
Ok… I’ll think of a way to prove it…
It’s paradoxical, I know. Christianity is all a paradox. Isn’t free will a paradox, if you come to think about it? Mere matter with the ability to choose independantly of exterior factors. And there are many such examples. Isn’t reality paradoxical? This doesn’t mean it’s not real. It only means there’s a higher reality…
Oh but you believe. Not in God, but you believe in something. The eternity of knowledge, or somethig, the eternity of truth… This by looking at what you are, a philosopher.
I can’t help myself discussing your signature, though…
Smart guy, this… Samuel Butler. Yea, he’s quite right, because people tend to accept what they get, without caring about what they get. They see so many peolpe being Christian, hey, it’s time for me to be one. They don’t really accept Christianity, but they accept the rest of the world’s religion. So if one is not like the rest of the world, hey, he’s a wacko! Go to hell! If a saint actually performs a miracle, oh my God, what is this? Go to hell, you’re not one of us!
Basically, it’s about accepting Christianity, personally. Understanding it.
Please do.
This is where irrationability leads to religious beliefs. “So what if it doesn’t make any sense? I want to believe it, so I will. I don’t care about the truth b/c my religion makes me feel good.” This is what it sounds like you are saying to me. A higher reality? Maybe so, but what leads you to believe that there is a higher reality? Only that you don’t want to believe the reality that you are in. Why does God prefer to linger in Mystery? Why won’t He just give us some evidence? Something more than just a feeling?
You mentioned “The Matrix” earlier and you wondered if I had seen it? I actually own it and am anxiously awaiting the sequel. I have seen it many times in DVD quality picture perfect quality. I love it and it even sparks my imagination of my own reality. But do I believe it to be true? No. I have no reason to believe it to be true. It would be nice to fly around and stop bullets and battle robots but if I can’t do it, and I haven’t seen anyone else do it, I just can’t believe it. So why would the imaginary reality that the Bible portrays be any different?
I was hoping to instigate some conversation from this . The quote intrigues me because it is exactly how I felt when I was a Christian. Anytime that I did something Christ-like or Christian-like, other Christians looked at me as if I were crazy. I will post more on this later.
Please do.
This is where irrationability leads to religious beliefs. “So what if it doesn’t make any sense? I want to believe it, so I will. I don’t care about the truth b/c my religion makes me feel good.” This is what it sounds like you are saying to me. A higher reality? Maybe so, but what leads you to believe that there is a higher reality? Only that you don’t want to believe the reality that you are in. Why does God prefer to linger in Mystery? Why won’t He just give us some evidence? Something more than just a feeling?
You mentioned “The Matrix” earlier and you wondered if I had seen it? I actually own it and am anxiously awaiting the sequel. I have seen it many times in DVD quality picture perfect quality. I love it and it even sparks my imagination of my own reality. But do I believe it to be true? No. I have no reason to believe it to be true. It would be nice to fly around and stop bullets and battle robots but if I can’t do it, and I haven’t seen anyone else do it, I just can’t believe it. So why would the imaginary reality that the Bible portrays be any different?
I was hoping to instigate some conversation from this . The quote intrigues me because it is exactly how I felt when I was a Christian. Anytime that I did something Christ-like or Christian-like, other Christians looked at me as if I were crazy. I will post more on this later.